Doug Ulman, chief executive officer of the Livestrong Foundation, says the charity remains strong, but has felt the effects of doping allegations against its famous founder, Lance Armstrong.

Sponsored Links

It dates to August 2010, just as federal prosecutors were investigating Lance Armstrong, Livestrong's founder. In a news article, a national charities expert predicted how the probe would affect the foundation.

Two years later, Livestrong forges on, striving to keep the focus on its massive mission: supporting cancer survivors. But now the charity must deal with questions about how it can unglue itself from formal accusations that its famous benefactor cheated to become a champion cyclist.

The impact already has hit the foundation. A lucrative contract with triathlons is in jeopardy. Congress is asking — and being asked — about the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency's case against Armstrong. After years of rumors and accusations, nearly three times more Americans dislike Armstrong than like him, according to Q Scores, a company that measures the likability of personalities.

USA TODAY Sports on Twitter!

To get the latest sports news from USA TODAY, including game results, columns and features, follow us on Twitter at @USATODAYSports.

All of it has brought Livestrong to a crossroads. Founded 15 years ago, Armstrong's foundation — and its iconic yellow bracelets — are a national symbol in the fight against cancer, mostly because of Armstrong and his inspiring story of beating the disease and going on to win the Tour de France seven consecutive times.

Public perceptions

Q Score measures the familiarity and appeal of a subject in the USA. Here is a comparison of the public’s perception of three prominent athletes:

Federal authorities closed their probe in February, but it centered on whether Armstrong committed criminal fraud, not whether he doped. USADA's mission is to protect the integrity of competition, and it says numerous witnesses will testify they saw Armstrong use banned substances and blood transfusions to improve his performance. Armstrong maintains his innocence and says he has never failed a drug test.

Armstrong's attorneys are trying to halt USADA's case — a legal fight that will open with a hearing Friday in a federal courthouse two miles from Livestrong headquarters in Austin, Armstrong's hometown. Foundation officials emphasize that the doping allegations have nothing to do with the charity, but the question is whether the public agrees.

"The fundamental premise upon which people give to charity is trust," says Ken Berger, CEO of Charity Navigator, a charity watchdog. "It's the life's blood of a charity: the trust of the public. And if a charity is built on the reputation and founding of a person that the public begins to lose trust in, then, by extension, it can potentially threaten the organization as well."

Berger made similar comments in 2010. It's his quote hanging in the office of Doug Ulman, Livestrong's CEO.

"It's motivation," Ulman says.

It's also a warning. To thrive regardless of how the doping allegations are resolved, Livestrong needs the popularity of its mission to transcend the reputation of its founder. It might already have done so. In the first six months of 2012, more cancer survivors — 8,000 — contacted the foundation for help than in any other similar period of any year. The average donation has slightly increased this year to $75, from $72 two years ago, according to Livestrong. The number of donations this year is nearly 80,000, more than 20% ahead of the previous two years.

Recent effects

Livestrong took a hit in June when USADA outlined its charges in a letter to Armstrong, putting his cycling titles at risk as well as making him immediately ineligible to compete in his return to triathlons. That put his deal with the World Triathlon Corporation in jeopardy — a one-year agreement that was to pay $1 million to the foundation in exchange for Armstrong's appearances. So far, the WTC has paid Livestrong $250,000.

Through a spokesman, Armstrong deferred comment to Livestrong.

"The good news is the organization is as strong as ever," Ulman says. "It continues to serve our mission. It continues to enjoy unparalleled levels of support. That said, we do see an impact. One is the constant barrage of media attention, even though it has nothing to do with the mission (of the foundation)."

That's why if Armstrong's lawsuit fails, he might have to decide between accepting USADA's allegations, fighting them in arbitration or cutting a deal that would make Armstrong eligible to compete in triathlons.

Livestrong also has felt effects in its dealings with Congress. The foundation typically works with legislators who support its work. But lately, it's been getting more questions from elected officials about the doping charges.

Livestrong also has pushed back: Its lobbying firm expressed concerns about the USADA case to the staff of U.S. Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., according to his office. Livestrong spokeswoman Katherine McLane said the lobbying firm was Patton Boggs, which she said represents the foundation on its domestic cancer policy and funding goals.

It's a fine line for the foundation to walk. Livestrong wants to support its founder, though it only can do so to a point, lest it breach ethical boundaries. Reports that Livestrong had discussed the matter with Serrano's office sparked speculation online that perhaps the foundation sought to prod the government to call off USADA, noting Serrano is the ranking Democrat on a subcommittee overseeing part of the agency's budget.

Livestrong also discussed the doping allegations in a June meeting with Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, whose office said the foundation did not seek political support to influence the case.

"The issue of the USADA case came up only in the context of how it might impact public relations for the foundation," said Dean Pagani, Hutchison's press secretary. "The meeting was about the mission of the foundation." No request was made of the senator, the spokesman said.

Ulman said the foundation does not financially support Armstrong's legal case. "That would be entirely inappropriate," he says.

While Livestrong seeks to separate the founder from the mission, it's not easy. In many ways, Armstrong is Livestrong. Yellow jerseys from his Tour de France victories hang from a wall at headquarters. Ulman, a cancer survivor himself, says he talks frequently with Armstrong, who is the foundation's biggest donor at about $6.3 million. In its most recently available federal tax forms, from 2010, the foundation still refers to itself by its previous name: the Lance Armstrong Foundation.

Maintaining support

In recent years, another foundation found itself entangled in controversy through its ties to a pro athlete — Tiger Woods.

Woods stepped away from golf, and the public eye, amid a personal sex scandal, causing his foundation to offer refunds and lose money. Woods publicly told foundation staff and sponsors that he was "embarrassed that I have put you in this position."

Armstrong, by contrast, often touts his foundation in his responses to the doping allegations. After the charges became public, he sent a Twitter message that said, "I refuse to be distracted by (USADA's) antics. It's 2012, I'm gonna continue to lead @LIVESTRONG, raise my 5 kids, and stay fit!"

In online forums, skeptics have suggested the cyclist is trying to use the foundation as a public relations shield to deflect attention from whether he cheated. His supporters counter it's Lance being Lance, always passionate about Livestrong.

Positive or negative, the two can't be untangled, a conundrum for Livestrong.

"If you're going to make a donation to somebody's charity, and you're becoming more and more negative to the person, there's a very high probability that you're going to cut back or cut out contributions to the charity because the charity embodies what you feel about the person," said Steven Levitt, president of the Q Scores company.

Like Woods, Armstrong has fallen out of favor nationally. According to Q Scores, only 10% of people who are familiar with Armstrong view him positively, compared with 29% who see him negatively. In 2004, those numbers were 16% positive and 17% negative.

By comparison, Woods has a negative number of 53% this year, compared with 20% in 2004.

"Controversy didn't impact (Armstrong) as severely as Tiger Woods," Levitt says. "The reason (Woods' popularity) numbers turned so terribly was because there was a family involved. If you break up a family, it's more than just what you do to yourself. The public feels that."

Tax forms for the Tiger Woods Foundation show its grants and contributions declined from the previous year — from $12.9 million to $7 million in 2010, though several factors could be involved. Messages seeking comment from Woods' foundation were not returned.

By comparison, Livestrong has 95 employees, its most to date. They say they're not thinking about USADA, and neither are the cancer survivors who contact them. "So far, we've had our busiest year," says Melissa Sileo, an employee. "The need is there."

Last weekend, for example, Ulman says he tried to help a minor league baseball coach get approved for a cancer treatment that his insurance company declined to cover. The work doesn't stop.

Ulman keeps another piece of paper pinned up at his desk, from the same charity watchdog that predicted devastation in 2010. It's a commendation for being a four-star charity that puts more than 80% of its money back into its programs — as opposed to salaries and overhead.

"The foundation itself is a lifestyle brand that over time will have to maneuver its way away from Armstrong," said David Carter, executive director of the Sports Business Institute at the University of Southern California. "Even if there was nothing going on, at some point it has to transcend the individual. … It's a very important time (for the foundation), but (the controversy) has been going on for a very long time. It would take something really decisive and definite to have a significant impact."

For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted | Updated

USA TODAY is now using Facebook Comments on our stories and blog posts to provide an enhanced user experience. To post a comment, log into Facebook and then "Add" your comment. To report spam or abuse, click the "X" in the upper right corner of the comment box. To find out more, read the FAQ and Conversation Guidelines.